PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. WILFREDO PARILLA, ALIAS “WILLY”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Parilla

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Wilfredo Parilla, known as Willy, for two counts of rape committed against a twelve-year-old girl. The accused was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Davao, Branch Three, and brought the matter to the Supreme Court. The case matters to a reviewee because it is a compact illustration of how the Court weighs positive identification against denial and alibi, and how it treats the credibility of child witnesses, the element of visibility at the time of the crime, and the requisites of alibi as a defense.

Procedural History

The accused was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Davao, Branch Three, with two counts of rape. After trial, that court rendered judgment on February 13, 1984, finding him guilty as charged. It imposed reclusion perpetua for each of the crimes charged, to be served simultaneously, and ordered him to pay the offended party 20,000 pesos in concept of moral damages. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors that the prosecution had not proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court erred in not considering his defense. The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed judgment.

Facts

On April 12, 1980, at about five o'clock in the afternoon, Flora Batulan, then twelve years old, was sent by her father, together with her eleven-year-old sister Corazon, her twelve-year-old cousin Alexander Cenita, and a thirteen-year-old friend, Juanito Lumuntad, to bring fish to her uncle, whose house was about a kilometer away. After the delivery, and when the four children were halfway home at about twilight, they noticed that the accused, then forty-five years old, wearing a red shirt and black pants and carrying a scythe, was behind them. He threw stones at them, and the four ran toward home.

The accused caught up with Flora, who could not run fast because she had just been released from the hospital after a bout with hepatitis. He lifted her, covered her mouth, and told her not to shout or else she would be killed. He took her to the bushes and raped her. Flora lost consciousness. When she regained consciousness, the accused was by her side and dragged her toward a rubber tree. She struggled to free herself but to no avail, and the accused succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her for the second time. He then brought her to a trail leading to her house.

Upon arriving home, Flora immediately told her aunt of the outrage on her person, and when her father arrived, she told him of her defloration. A medical examination conducted the same day showed a ruptured hymen, the presence of whitish fluid fishy in odor, and loss of virginity. The accused denied the charges and imputed the crime to Noling Dimpas, his cousin, and set up alibi, claiming he was at the camarin of his landlord drinking tuba at the time. The trial court rejected these defenses.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly through the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses despite the claim that it was already dark.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not considering the defense of the accused, namely denial and alibi.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision in its text; it applies the law on rape as charged and the settled rules on evidence, identification, and alibi. The penalty imposed, reclusion perpetua for each of the crimes charged, reflects the governing law at the time of the decision.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the guilt of the accused was proven beyond peradventure of doubt. There could be no doubt that Flora could recognize her molestor. She knew the accused quite well, as he was a neighbor and she used to see him pasturing a carabao not far from her house, a fact the accused himself admitted. Flora testified that she saw him clearly because it was still bright. At the first opportunity, upon arriving home, she disclosed the molestation and identified the culprit, first to her aunt and then to her father. She reiterated her identification in her sworn statement to the police two days after, and when confronted with the accused, she readily pointed to him as the rapist.

Two eyewitnesses, Flora's companions, corroborated her testimony. Alexander Cenita testified that the accused stoned them, that when he looked back he saw the accused holding and covering Flora's mouth, and that the accused lifted her and brought her to the bushes. He could even describe the color of the accused's clothes, belying the contention that it was already dark. Corazon Batulan likewise testified that she saw the accused throw stones, that they ran, and that when they looked back they saw Flora, who was running slow, caught up by the accused, who covered her mouth and lifted her. On the question of visibility, Corazon testified that at the time the accused threw stones at them, there was still little brightness and they could see him clearly, and Alexander clarified that they could see him clearly and that it was still bright.

The Court held that the positive identification of the accused by Flora, Corazon, and Alexander as the author of the offense belies the denials and alibi set up by him. No ulterior motive was imputed to these witnesses, and thus the presumption is that they were not actuated by improper considerations and their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the defense. The accused would have the Court believe that his cousin Noling Dimpas was the culprit, that the barangay captain and the police investigators made him answerable for the crime committed by Noling because he refused to reveal the latter's whereabouts, and that he was hanged from his hands for four hours and jabbed with the butt of a garand rifle. The trial court concluded that this was a tale that is untrustworthy. The accused stated that Noling was in the camarin with him at the time the barangay captain arrived, and yet he did not reveal Noling's whereabouts although the latter was allegedly only hiding behind the camarin. Furthermore, the records did not show that he was formally investigated by the police, so that there was, in fact, no document which he could have been forced to sign.

The Court likewise held that the alibi was not worthy of credence. The accused presented Danilo Ignacio, who was confined in the same jail, to strengthen his alibi, but the latter candidly admitted that when he was requested by the accused to testify, he was told what to state in court. It was likewise cause for wonder that Tomas Espillarga, who was allegedly with him drinking tuba that afternoon, was never presented as a witness although defense counsel had manifested that he was to testify first. The alibi was not only untenable; the accused had also failed to clearly show that it was impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, since the camarin where he claims he was is situated in the same barangay where the crime took place.

Doctrine

Positive identification by witnesses who had no improper motive to testify falsely prevails over denial and alibi. Where the accused is known to the victim as a neighbor, and the victim identifies him at the first opportunity, in her sworn statement, and in open court, such identification is entitled to full faith and credit. The presumption is that witnesses are not actuated by improper considerations absent proof of ulterior motive.

Alibi, to prosper, must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Where the place of alibi is in the same barangay as the scene of the crime, the defense fails. Denial is a weak defense that cannot overcome positive identification.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed judgment finding Wilfredo Parilla, alias Willy, guilty of two counts of rape, with costs against him.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that positive identification by witnesses of good faith prevails over denial and alibi, and that alibi fails where the accused was within the same barangay at the time of the crime. Examiners like to use this case on the credibility of child witnesses, the sufficiency of identification despite claims of darkness, and the requisites of alibi as a defense.